Accuracy

Scope of this Guidance Note

This note provides specific guidance for ensuring accuracy in all fact-based content, including news and current affairs, documentaries, commentary, interviews, reviews, magazine-style and quiz programs, online data and graphs. It deals with both ABC platforms and third-party platforms, including social media.

Key Editorial Standards

Excerpts of key editorial standards relevant to this Guidance Note are set out below. Other editorial standards may also be relevant, depending on the specific circumstances applying in each case.

2 Accuracy

2.1 Make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented in context.

2.2 Do not present factual content in a way that will materially mislead the audience. In some cases, this may require appropriate labels or other explanatory information.

Introduction

Accuracy is fundamental to credibility for a media organisation. It is also relevant for other important editorial standards, such as impartiality and fair dealing. That’s because an important part of treating people fairly and presenting content impartially involves getting the facts right.

Of course, practical considerations can affect the degree of accuracy which can be achieved, which is why our standards refer to “reasonable efforts”, keeping in mind the context and nature of the factual material we publish and broadcast.

Any lapse of accuracy is regrettable and may require correction. We all strive for perfect, 100% accuracy, but it is not a minimum standard that it is reasonable to enforce, nor is it what is expected.

Generally speaking, the more material facts are to a piece of content and the more serious the implications of those facts, the greater the efforts need to be to ensure its accuracy. This guidance note explores some of the factors to keep in mind when judging whether reasonable accuracy has been reached.

Mandatory referral

Where UGC is to be incorporated into factual content, checks should be made to verify the accuracy of any factual material contained or presented within UGC. If verification is not possible to the extent desired, usage should be referred to the most senior person in the division designated for the purpose.

We check facts, not opinions.

A fact is a fact, regardless of who says it, and reasonable efforts must be made to ensure its accuracy.

So it doesn’t matter whether you, as an ABC content maker, indicate that (for example) Australia has an official unemployment rate of 5.8% or someone else you are interviewing states it as a fact. To the audience, it has been presented as a fact.

On the other hand, opinions are a different matter. So to continue the example, if a politician being interviewed on the ABC says the unemployment rate is 5.8%, that is a fact which is capable of being verified. But if he or she goes on to say that such an unemployment rate is disastrous for the community, or the sign of a bad government, that is an opinion. An ‘opinion’ is a viewpoint, often based on a value judgement, that cannot be proved or disproved. Opposing viewpoints may be equally legitimate.

Of course, we all know that the lines between facts and opinions can sometimes be blurred, and it can be difficult to know whether, for example, something asserted during an interview is a statement of fact or one of opinion. Many people will express their opinions as facts and maintain that they can ‘prove’ them, but that doesn’t make them facts.

This is especially common with predictions (‘sea levels will rise by 2 feet before the end of the century’; ‘this initiative will lead to higher unemployment without a doubt’ ) and broad assessments of quality or motivation (‘this is the worst performance by a Government since the war’; ‘the company is motivated solely by a desire for higher profits’). A prediction can be based on facts, but it can never itself be a fact capable of verification. Similarly, a broad assessment can be based on demonstrable evidence and that evidence can be fact-checked, but the conclusions drawn from those agreed facts can and do differ.

Ensuring our own facts are accurate.

Facts can be slippery things. They can require substantial amounts of research and investigation to establish beyond doubt, and so one of the central challenges for any journalist or content maker is how far they need to go to cross reference, investigate and confirm through multiple sources. Of course, there is no simple answer to this. It depends on a number of factors:

How “material” is the fact?

A material fact is one which is relevant or essential to understanding the subject matter or issue being discussed.

For example, in a factual story about the decision of an MP to resign and thereby trigger a vital by-election, the name of the MP, the party he or she represents and the name of the electorate would all be material facts, as well as any statements made about the reasons for the resignation. However, factual information about the correct name of the public hall chosen for the announcement, or the number of years the MP held the seat, while important to get right, would not necessarily be considered material facts if they are of no particular significance to a reasonable person in understanding the thrust of the story.

On the other hand, a detail like the correct date on which a song was released may well be material in the context of a music quiz show, where a high level of detailed accuracy is required in answers.

Put simply, the more material a fact is, the greater your efforts need to be to get it absolutely right.

The type, subject and nature of the content

This puts the focus on the actual content itself. Is the type, say, an item of news or a nature documentary, a factual drama, a recipe online, some banter on radio, a review of someone’s products or services? Is its subject, say, a government’s new tax, a retrospective about an artist’s work, or the range of models in someone’s car collection? Is the nature of the content, say, serious or light, analytical or off hand, contemporary or historical, frivolous or in earnest? Is the content, say, deliberate and authoritative or anecdotal, off the cuff, tentative?

For example, a major investigative current affairs story or documentary on a matter of significant public interest would carry a high burden in relation to ensuring accuracy of the key facts presented.

On the other hand, the broadcast of a sporting event which includes live commentary where the vision is available to the audience and the commentator is attempting to accurately describe events as they are occurring would have greater latitude when determining efforts to ensure accuracy as the situation unfolds.

The likely audience expectations of the content

The focus shifts to the audience the ABC is serving. Who is the audience for the particular content in question? Is it an audience engaged with public affairs? Is it a specialist audience with more-than-general knowledge? Is it children, perhaps with an educational interest? Is it a mixed audience of mostly adults, leaning back to relax, be entertained, diverted, amused? Once the audience is in focus, ask yourself: What would a reasonable person in that sort of audience expect in terms of efforts to ensure accuracy in factual content of the type/subject/nature in question?

Generally speaking, the strongest expectation of accuracy applies to news and analysis of current events relating to political or controversial matters of public importance.

In general, the more substantial the piece of content the more likely the audience is to expect detailed context in the provision of factual content.

In a wide-ranging discussion, interview or talk-back situation the audience would be less likely to be relying on the precise accuracy of every fact presented and discussed, while at the other end of the scale, a news flash on a breaking story of major national or international importance, or the provision of time-critical information on a state of emergency are situations where audience expectation of accuracy would be high.

The likely impact of reliance by the audience on the accuracy of the content

Here the focus is mostly on consequences. The reasonably expected efforts to ensure accuracy vary according to the information and the context in which the audience is turning to the ABC for it. Is there an election pending, so that voters might pay more attention and place greater reliance on the content in question than at other times? Is the content information about, say, extreme weather conditions, and being provided at a time when people likely to be affected by those conditions would expect from the ABC considerable efforts, especially if the conditions may have an impact on safety?

Where harm flows from inaccuracy, consider the degree of harm. This includes consideration of any harm or damage to the individuals, groups or organisations referred to in the content. Was the harm something that could be foreseen at the time the content was made and presented? Consider the efforts that were made to ensure accuracy. Consider qualifications that might be made to indicate that the information should not be relied upon or that verification is still underway. Having regard to the harm, were the efforts reasonable?

The ABC is trusted as a credible source of information. If factual content is inaccurate, a consequence that should not be overlooked, but which should not be overstated either, is potential harm to that trust. For example, while a news item mistakenly reporting the death of a well-known public figure may be quickly rectified, people will remember the outlet that got it wrong. Such incidents can eat away at a reputation for reliability. Where risks to the ABC’s reputation as a result of an error would be serious, the efforts required to ensure accuracy are greater.

The circumstances in which the content was made and presented

The focus here is the practical reality for the people who made and presented the content. Many aspects may be relevant. For instance: was the program prerecorded or live? Were events taking place far away or in an inaccessible location? Was language a barrier? Was the reporter on the road working in circumstances that affect accuracy? Were communications between those involved in making and presenting the content impaired in a way that was beyond control and relevant to the accuracy issue? If the setting was an interview, how much time did the interviewer and colleagues have for preparation?

In assessing reasonableness, it is important to take into account the amount of time content makers had to prepare the content, including: the time available to carry out checks for accuracy, the ease with which the material was able to be verified, the efforts taken to carry out these checks, and the length, complexity and preparation involved in the specific piece of content; the prior knowledge generally available on the subject being dealt with and the status and availability of that knowledge; and the skills and experience of the content makers. It is also important to identify the specific steps taken by the content makers to independently verify information being presented as facts within a piece of content, and any constraints that prevented further independent assessment of factual material. Material commissioned for broadcast or publication on the ABC by co-producers and independent producers has the same standard of accuracy required as material produced by the ABC. (See below 8. Content acquired by the ABC).

However, while the amount of time available to content makers and deadline pressures are factors in determining the reasonableness of efforts to ensure accuracy, the more controversial and investigative a piece of content is, the more time should be allowed for the necessary checks to be made. Given the importance of ensuring accuracy, particularly in relation to major investigative current affairs content, deferral of the broadcast or publication of the content should be strongly considered where necessary and possible, to ensure accuracy of material facts.

It is important to be realistic but not self-serving when considering the four factors, especially the last. No single factor ‘trumps’ the others each time. In particular cases, one factor may receive greater weight than others.

Ensuring facts presented by others are accurate.

All of the factors outlined in the section above also apply to facts in our content that are presented by others – guests, interviewees and other ‘talent’. If our audience is being presented with what purport to be facts, from any source, we have a responsibility to consider how accurate those facts are.

However, when dealing with facts that others present in our content, some additional considerations apply:

Have we quoted them accurately?

We should always make it clear whether we are quoting someone verbatim or paraphrasing them.

In text, direct quotes should be in quotation marks. In broadcast, they are normally the actuality of the person speaking, or information presented graphically in text. In text and broadcast, reasonable efforts must be made to quote accurately and in context, and not present quotes in a misleading way.

Who are those facts attributed to?

Our editorial policies acknowledge that, in many cases, it is reasonable to rely on experts. This is particularly true when assessing contested or complex subject matter.

So attribution can be an important way of ensuring accuracy. If something is presented as a fact (as opposed to expert opinion) in a complex and highly specialised area by an acknowledged subject expert, then that can often serve as a sign of accurate and reliable content.

But beware. Expert opinion can differ, even on the same facts, and even the most experienced subject matter experts can tend to present their opinions as if they were facts.

So don’t just assume that, provided we attribute a quote accurately, then it becomes someone else’s problem.

In other words, don’t think that if a demographer appears in a piece of ABC content asserting that 25% of our population comes from Asia, then if that turns out to be inaccurate it is his problem and not ours.

If it there are simple and reasonable ways to verify such an asserted fact, then we should. At the very least (and particularly if the comment comes in a live interview), we should be prepared to question or challenge anything stated as a fact which seems problematic or contested.

Have we demonstrated efforts to verify?

Verification of facts normally involves checking with primary sources: going to original documents or transcripts, checking with individuals who were directly involved or faithfully documenting and presenting information you have directly witnessed.

If there is doubt, a second or third source may be required to verify or cross check. In each case, attempts should be made to ensure that all sources relied upon have direct knowledge of the facts being checked. Preference should always be given to official sources, to direct eyewitnesses and to acknowledged authorities when checking information.

The reasonableness of these checks will depend on the circumstances. For example, when checking the accuracy of a simple fact relating to an organisation, it is reasonable to rely on confirmation from an appropriate representative of that organisation. For a fact less obviously connected with a specific organisation, it is reasonable to consult an official or other reputable source or sources of information in the time available before broadcast or publication. An example of this would be referring to official sources like the Australian Bureau of Statistics or the OECD when verifying key national or international statistics on population, economic growth, or employment. Information on company activities can often be independently verified through sources like the Stock Exchange, while the Australian Parliamentary Library and a range of Government websites often provide fact sheets and background papers containing both current and historical data.

Accuracy in live content.

Live content can present particular challenges when it comes to maintaining accuracy.

In many cases, there is little opportunity for verification when a live interview, live talkback on radio or live coverage of an event includes purported statements of fact.

Our editorial standards recognise this, which is why the focus is always on what is reasonable in the circumstances.

There are a range of particular steps content makers can take to ensure accuracy when broadcasting or publishing live content:

Prepare. Content makers should research the likely topics of conversation before any live material is run, to familiarise themselves with the basic facts and be in the best possible position to challenge, question or correct any inaccuracies when they come up.

Question. Be prepared, during live content, to ask questions, challenge interviewees on anything which sounds doubtful or contested, and seek additional information on sources and supporting evidence.

Update, replace and correct. If inaccurate information is included in live content, then be prepared to fix the problem at the earliest opportunity. Timely corrections or the inclusion of more accurate information as soon as it comes to hand will demonstrate the ABC’s commitment to getting it right.

Putting facts in context.

Inaccuracy can also arise through the omission of factual information or when material is presented out of context, where the result can materially mislead the audience.

For example, to state that a local authority has closed down a significant neighbourhood park, resulting in community protest, without including the fact that they have simultaneously opened up a larger park directly across the road could result in a breach of accuracy through omitting important context.

Not all information relating to an issue or event can be or should be included in every factual story and the editing and selecting process is a necessary part of the production process. However, decisions need to be made about what level of context is essential to an understanding of the key elements of an issue, and this context needs to be included to ensure accuracy.

This is often a particular issue when deciding whether to ‘label’ interviewees, and provide appropriate information about their background. The challenge is to get the balance right between giving the audience the information it needs in order to understand and weigh up what is being said, with the need to avoid unfairly or unnecessarily passing comment on particular points of view or
being seen to qualify or undermine them.

The guiding principle is always whether the information is relevant and important to the audience. For example, if a leading academic is criticising a Government action or policy, it would be relevant to disclose if that academic had formerly been a leading figure in an opposing political party.

Third party and user generated content.

The ABC routinely obtains factual material from third parties for broadcast or publication. This includes, but is not necessarily limited to, content supplied by other broadcasters, raw footage, audio and text from news agencies and content from other reputable independent sources such as distributors.

It also includes material provided such as video news releases and stock or pool footage from companies or government departments. This content can range from a single fact provided on, for example, a wire service like AAP or AFP, to a complete program.

Where the ABC is acquiring the content, the checks required in order to ensure accuracy will depend on the nature of the source and the material being provided. The following approaches are a guide –

The ABC acquires raw news material (audio, video & text), live event coverage and completed news and current affairs content from reputable news agencies and broadcasters, both on an ad hoc basis and as part of ongoing contractual arrangements. Generally the ABC relies on the accuracy of this content without further checks, but accepts responsibility for its accuracy and will promptly correct any errors identified.

The ABC acquires documentaries and other factual content from suppliers including distributors, broadcasters and independent producers. A key consideration in acquiring this content is the reputation and bona fides of the source. Checks should be made to determine if questions have been raised about factual accuracy of the material in relation to any previous broadcasts or publications. Where necessary, material may need to be amended, circumscribed or explained, particularly if additional information has come to light since the material was originally produced, broadcast or published.

Third party providers may have a particular vested interest in the material being provided – for example, corporate video releases, footage or interviews that are provided by corporate or government sources, lobby groups, think tanks, etc…, and any such interest should be investigated. Such material where an interest has been identified will always be clearly attributed, and issues of contextual accuracy will be carefully considered. Where relevant, inclusion of such material in ABC content may require the addition of context or factual material from other
sources in order to ensure overall accuracy.

User generated content, including SMS messages, online comments, tweets, emails, photos, images, video or audio provided by users, should always be attributed as user generated content. Where UGC is to be incorporated into factual content, checks should be made to verify the accuracy of any factual material contained or presented within UGC. If verification is not possible to the extent desired, usage should be referred to the most senior person in the division designated for the purpose.

Content on third party platforms & social media.

Any material which is being posted on third party platforms (including social media platforms) from official ABC sources, including official ABC social media accounts, is covered by the same accuracy requirements as information on ABC platforms.

The only difference is in the techniques which are used to correct information found to be inaccurate, where different social media platforms may have different conventions and processes. For example, on Twitter it is normally the case that inaccurate tweets are not deleted, but updated. Often this can be done by attaching a correction, update or clarification as a response to the
original tweet, thereby ensuring that the two remain linked in a clear and transparent way.

In all cases, the ABC will seek out and adopt best practice on the particular platform.

Unofficial, personal content on social media by ABC staff is not covered by the Editorial Policies, but by our social media guidelines. Despite that, contentmaking staff who are posting factual information on social media should aim for accuracy, to avoid any risk of bringing themselves or the ABC into disrepute.

Status of Guidance Note

This Guidance Note, authorised by the Managing Director, is provided to assist interpretation of the Editorial Policies to which the Guidance Note relates. Guidance notes provide advice to assist in the interpretation of the Editorial Policies, which contain the standards enforceable under the ABC’s internal management processes and under the ABC’s complaints handling procedures.

It is expected that staff will normally act in accordance with the advice contained in Guidance Notes. In a given situation there may be good reasons to depart from the advice. This is permissible so long as the standards of the Editorial Policies are met. In such situations, the matter should ordinarily be referred upwards. Any mandatory referrals specified in Guidance Notes must be complied with.